Astros to AL West, year long interleauge play required

[Moranis]

One of the preconditions on the sale of the Astros was a move to the AL West.  That wouldn't occur until 2013, but that means with 15 teams in each league, baseball is going to have year long interleague play.  

Astros fans are not happy with the move, even with the added rivalry of the Rangers, because the other 3 teams in the AL West play on the west coast which means many more games won't end till after midnight Houston time.

Seems like a good idea for baseball.  The imbalanced divisions just seemed unfair and unnecessary, though year long interleague play will seem a bit strange at first, I do think it is the right move.

Baseball will also probably add an extra wild card team from each league.  That may start as early as next season.  I will be curious to see what the proposal is for that.  I would personally play a 3 game series starting at the 5 seed and then a double header the next day at the 4 seed, but I don't think that would happen.

[Roy H.]

I like the Astros move to the American league.  I think the two leagues needed to be balanced out. 

I'm not in love with the idea of having interleague play every week of the season, but it's a necessary evil with an odd number of teams in each league,  Didn't baseball deliberately unbalance the leagues when interleague play started, moving Milwaukee to the National League, to avoid that problem? 

As for the wildcard, I'm okay with adding another team if the goal is to have a wildcard vs. wildcard "play in" game.  I don't want to see things expand past one game, though.

[Moranis]

I like the Astros move to the American league.  I think the two leagues needed to be balanced out. 

I'm not in love with the idea of having interleague play every week of the season, but it's a necessary evil with an odd number of teams in each league,  Didn't baseball deliberately unbalance the leagues when interleague play started, moving Milwaukee to the National League, to avoid that problem? 

As for the wildcard, I'm okay with adding another team if the goal is to have a wildcard vs. wildcard "play in" game.  I don't want to see things expand past one game, though.

In 1995 when Arizona and Tampa were awarded teams to begin in 1998, MLB didn't want to expand interleauge to year round because it was so new (started in 97) and it wasn't sure if was going to stick around so they had to add 2 teams to the NL for 98 and didn't want them both to be expansion teams.  Kansas City was asked first, but it didn't want to move so Milwaukee was asked and it moved from the AL Central to the NL Central.  Tampa went into the AL East and the Tigers moved from the AL East to the AL Central.   

Now that interleague play is a fixture and it works, it is time to balance the league back out.

[wdleehi]

Works for me.


Interleague weekend doesn't mean as much anymore.





I am also fine with another wildcard team that have to play the other wildcard team in a series of no more then 3 games.  (I doubt they do just one game because they want every playoff team to have a home gate)

[slamtheking]

I like the Astros move to the American league.  I think the two leagues needed to be balanced out.  

I'm not in love with the idea of having interleague play every week of the season, but it's a necessary evil with an odd number of teams in each league,  Didn't baseball deliberately unbalance the leagues when interleague play started, moving Milwaukee to the National League, to avoid that problem?  

As for the wildcard, I'm okay with adding another team if the goal is to have a wildcard vs. wildcard "play in" game.  I don't want to see things expand past one game, though.

In 1995 when Arizona and Tampa were awarded teams to begin in 1998, MLB didn't want to expand interleauge to year round because it was so new (started in 97) and it wasn't sure if was going to stick around so they had to add 2 teams to the NL for 98 and didn't want them both to be expansion teams.  Kansas City was asked first, but it didn't want to move so Milwaukee was asked and it moved from the AL Central to the NL Central.  Tampa went into the AL East and the Tigers moved from the AL East to the AL Central.  

Now that interleague play is a fixture and it works, it is time to balance the league back out.

but that's just it, I don't think interleague play works at all.  I think it stinks.  I not a complete purist of the game (I'm not appalled at the use of the DH in the AL) but interleague play should never have been instituted.  Takes away from the mystique of the World Series a bit.  Then again, as a Brewer fan I've always hated that Selig moved the team to the NL.  They don't come to Boston anymore (not that I attend any games anyway since the cancellation of the World Series in '94)

Interleague all season would be horrible.  If they're going to ruin the game by failing to keep the leagues separate then they may as well go all the way and just disband the 2 leagues and make one league with 6 divisions and 2 wild card teams make the playoffs.  Top record gets the worst wild card in the playoffs.  
Oh, and drop the DH completely.  Only one style should exist if leagues are merged and too much of the art of the game is lost if the DH is kept.

Northeast: Boston, Yanks, Mets, Washington, Orioles
Mid-Atlantic: Phillies, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit
Southeast: Tampa, Marlins, Atlanta, Houston, Rangers,
Midwest:  St Louis, Kansas City, Toronto, Cubs, White Sox
MidContinent:  Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Mariners,
California: Dodgers, Angels, San Diego, Giants, Oakland

In essense, blow it up and try to develop the local rivalries as much as possible.  (Washington-Orioles, NY-NY, CHI-CHI, CLE-CIN, KC-STL, California, Tampa-FLA, Pitt-PHI, HOU-TEX)
In this alignment, the only division that's a stretch for local rivalries is the MidContinent.

[Moranis]

I like the Astros move to the American league.  I think the two leagues needed to be balanced out.  

I'm not in love with the idea of having interleague play every week of the season, but it's a necessary evil with an odd number of teams in each league,  Didn't baseball deliberately unbalance the leagues when interleague play started, moving Milwaukee to the National League, to avoid that problem?  

As for the wildcard, I'm okay with adding another team if the goal is to have a wildcard vs. wildcard "play in" game.  I don't want to see things expand past one game, though.

In 1995 when Arizona and Tampa were awarded teams to begin in 1998, MLB didn't want to expand interleauge to year round because it was so new (started in 97) and it wasn't sure if was going to stick around so they had to add 2 teams to the NL for 98 and didn't want them both to be expansion teams.  Kansas City was asked first, but it didn't want to move so Milwaukee was asked and it moved from the AL Central to the NL Central.  Tampa went into the AL East and the Tigers moved from the AL East to the AL Central.  

Now that interleague play is a fixture and it works, it is time to balance the league back out.

but that's just it, I don't think interleague play works at all.  I think it stinks.  I not a complete purist of the game (I'm not appalled at the use of the DH in the AL) but interleague play should never have been instituted.  Takes away from the mystique of the World Series a bit.  Then again, as a Brewer fan I've always hated that Selig moved the team to the NL.  They don't come to Boston anymore (not that I attend any games anyway since the cancellation of the World Series in '94)

Interleague all season would be horrible.  If they're going to ruin the game by failing to keep the leagues separate then they may as well go all the way and just disband the 2 leagues and make one league with 6 divisions and 2 wild card teams make the playoffs.  Top record gets the worst wild card in the playoffs.  
Oh, and drop the DH completely.  Only one style should exist if leagues are merged and too much of the art of the game is lost if the DH is kept.

Northeast: Boston, Yanks, Mets, Washington, Orioles
Mid-Atlantic: Phillies, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit
Southeast: Tampa, Marlins, Atlanta, Houston, Rangers,
Midwest:  St Louis, Kansas City, Toronto, Cubs, White Sox
MidContinent:  Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Mariners,
California: Dodgers, Angels, San Diego, Giants, Oakland

In essense, blow it up and try to develop the local rivalries as much as possible.  (Washington-Orioles, NY-NY, CHI-CHI, CLE-CIN, KC-STL, California, Tampa-FLA, Pitt-PHI, HOU-TEX)
In this alignment, the only division that's a stretch for local rivalries is the MidContinent.

so are upset with the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc. that all have two leagues.  Seems a bit odd you would hold MLB to a different standard.

[Fafnir]

I prefer two balanced leagues and inter-league play year round is fine with me.

The stupid different rules for the two leagues needs to go though. DH for both, or DH for neither.

[Donoghus]

No qualms.

Baseball has already undergone so many changes in the last 20 years or so.  Another change like this isn't going to kill baseball. 

Seems only natural that the Rangers and Astros should be together in the same division anyways.

Interleague is interleague.  You get some intriguing matchups (Cubs-Sox, Yankees-Mets, etc) and you get some real duds.  It is what it is.

[Moranis]

This would be my proposed schedule breakdown

4 divisional opponents, 18 games - 72
10 conference opponents, 6 games - 60 (132)
2 full divisions other league, 3 games - 30 (162)

That way every team in each division has the exact same strength of schedule.  You just rotate the other conference divisions so one year you play East/West, next East/Central, last Central/West.  Also puts a lot of weight on your divisional opponents to build up rivalries.  I really dislike the unbalanced nature of the schedules, especially the interleague.  This seems to me to be the best way to go about it.